View Full Version : Minimum distance between caches



brdad
04-11-2005, 04:48 PM
The current gc.com guidelines limit the minimum distance between caches to be .1 mile (528 feet). Many times in national chat and the gc.com forums, cachers express their thoughts that .1 mile is too little or too much.

Disreguarding the politics of whether there should be rules or not, What distance do you think would be a common sense minimum distance for caches to be placed in the areas outside city limits in Maine? And, should the areas inside city limits be different?

Disclaimer: This subject did not come about from any of the caching I did last weekend, or any other day for that matter.

Mainiac1957
04-11-2005, 04:57 PM
I think a half mile would be fine on rural caches. In a city setting they could be closer. I recently read somewhere that in the greater San Francisco area that there are 4000+ caches. I don't know how big an area that really is, but it seems like an aweful lot for one metropolitan area. Considering there are only 600 something in the state of Maine. IMHO

dí76
04-11-2005, 05:16 PM
Doesn't matter to me. Could someone give me the pros and cons because to me, the more the marrier


Dave1976

WhereRWe?
04-11-2005, 05:24 PM
I like the .1 mile. But then, it depends on what you mean by "rural".

There are at least 4 caches within 1/2 mile in Skowhegan, and I think they're all worthwhile. If you Want to have a dual criteria, i.e., .1 mile within the limits of a built up area/town, and 1/2 (.5) mile outside the built up area, then I'm all for it.


:D

Haffy
04-11-2005, 06:19 PM
I think the .1 distance set up by GC.com is fine with me unless you are talking about 500 micros underneath each lamp post....lol

brdad
04-11-2005, 06:40 PM
I am well familiar with the cache density in certian areas of California, as well as some other areas. I really don't want Maine to come down to having a cache under each lamp post as haffy stated.

With aproximately 25 caches per square mile using the .1 mile rule, if you take only the land area of Maine (30,862 sq. miles) that makes 771,550 locations available for caches. of course, many areas are off limits.

If it were up to me and only me, I'd be happy with a mile minimum. If there are two areas closer than that, a cache placer could always make a multi of it. I know I can get extreme, however, so I dropped my vote to .75 miles.

I do, however, think the .1 mile rule is probably fine for urban areas, which I would classify as Maine's Cities - Bangor, Skowhegan, Waterville, Portland, etc... I guess that would have to be clarified if any rule were enacted.

The pros/cons are pretty basic - with no limit, cache hiders have no restrictions, and with a high limit you may not be able to hide a cache where you'd like, but there won't be a cache on every street corner.

Team2hunt
04-11-2005, 07:11 PM
I think there are too many variables to vote accurately. It depends on how well you can or want to walk. The lay of the land, and the availability to hide numerous caches, in a small area. To us it's not the numbers, it's the adventure. If you have to walk a great distance, and there are numerous areas to visit. Like Bradbury Mountain and Midknight, that's ok. I feel lucky Windham doesn't have any lamp posts. ;) :D LOL

WhereRWe?
04-11-2005, 07:52 PM
I am well familiar with the cache density in certian areas of California, as well as some other areas. I really don't want Maine to come down to having a cache under each lamp post as haffy stated.


What??? You mean someone else doesn't like the idea of putting film cans under light posts in the parking lot of fast food restaurants and calling them geocaches?????

Sheesh! There is hope for this "sport" yet! :D You've got a beer on me at the "Beer & Wings" event, brdad! :cool:

Haffy
04-11-2005, 07:55 PM
Hey!!! What about me? I was the one who mentioned the lamp post micros in the first place....lol :D

brdad
04-11-2005, 08:08 PM
Hey!!! What about me? I was the one who mentioned the lamp post micros in the first place....lol :D

You can have my beer, haffy, I probably won't drink any. Well, unless I need to in order to log it as a find. Did we figure out if that was a requirement yet?

:D

Haffy
04-11-2005, 08:18 PM
Gee I never thought of that Dave as I don't drink either. Looks like we will have to eat 2 orders of wings to make up for our lack of drinking that's all.....lol :D

Pooh and friends
04-11-2005, 09:22 PM
Personally I can live with GC's limits in place. I have been to caches that are placed way to close to one another, and to some places where there is an excellent spot to place a new cache but havn't because of the limits. Perhaps some sort of exceptions such as island caches, or opposite sides of a river may be in order. I dont think the city/rural limits should matter.

tat
04-11-2005, 09:39 PM
Check out The Apple Farm Cache. That would be a great place to have two caches, 10 feet apart!

Sudonim
04-11-2005, 09:54 PM
Check out The Apple Farm Cache. That would be a great place to have two caches, 10 feet apart!


"Don't Fence Me In" by Gene Autry.....oh, wait, wrong thread! ;)

brdad
04-12-2005, 02:12 AM
Check out The Apple Farm Cache. That would be a great place to have two caches, 10 feet apart!

I guess that's where I think differently. Two caches at that cache ten feet apart isn't as appealing to me, since both cordinates give you the same "experience" - the hike/view. However, two stages of a multi at the same two places seems quite evil and appealing. Hmm, I'm getting an idea for stage 37 of my upcoming hide.... :D

FFFarmer
06-02-2005, 06:23 PM
I think a 1/4 mile would be OK, We recently placed two caches .36 miles apart. Origionally we was going to make it a multi, but because of the difficulty of the second cache we decided to make them seperate so people could still enjoy the first one if they are not able to get to the second. I do agree that we should not saturate an area just because we can, but if there are neat places of interest that is OK.

Sounds like we are going to have to get to the next event, you guys have too much fun.

J_Cyr
06-12-2005, 11:55 AM
I think a half mile would be fine on rural caches. In a city setting they could be closer. I recently read somewhere that in the greater San Francisco area that there are 4000+ caches. I don't know how big an area that really is, but it seems like an aweful lot for one metropolitan area. Considering there are only 600 something in the state of Maine. IMHOI agree. Sometimes its nice to park the truck and walk and get four or five caches done.

jombbl
07-06-2005, 09:26 PM
I think the .1 distance set up by GC.com is fine with me unless you are talking about 500 micros underneath each lamp post....lol Bless you.:)

I really don't want Maine to come down to having a cache under each lamp post as haffy stated. Bless you both.:)

If we were closer to Maine, we would happily buy Beer & Wings for both of you to keep the faith alive!;)

Brianbo
07-19-2005, 05:28 PM
I am new but I think that it should be 0. Why should there be a limit? If there is a good spot and more then one person wants to put one there, go for it.

brdad
07-19-2005, 06:16 PM
I am new but I think that it should be 0. Why should there be a limit? If there is a good spot and more then one person wants to put one there, go for it.

So, you're saying if the minimum was 0, you'd have nothing against 20 film canister micros all hidden under the same light post cover?

Haffy
07-19-2005, 06:55 PM
Let him get a few hides under his belt and he will see what we mean. But I guess each to his own.

Trezurs*-R-*Fun
07-19-2005, 09:10 PM
I am new but I think that it should be 0. Why should there be a limit? If there is a good spot and more then one person wants to put one there, go for it.

That kind of defeats the purpose. Geocaching, for me is to discover new places, why would I want to visit one area and log 25 (or whatever number) caches that show the exact same thing?

attroll
07-19-2005, 11:48 PM
That kind of defeats the purpose. Geocaching, for me is to discover new places, why would I want to visit one area and log 25 (or whatever number) caches that show the exact same thing?
That is my exact idea aslo. I geocache to vist new place and see new things.

WhereRWe?
07-20-2005, 06:05 AM
That is my exact idea aslo. I geocache to vist new place and see new things.

I agree. How many times have we seen a log entry: "We've never have known about this place if it weren't for geocaching".

And besides, my memory is so bad, I could visit the same cache 3 times and still see new things! LOL!

:D :D

attroll
07-20-2005, 01:42 PM
I hate going to a cache in the middle of nowhere or just off the side of the road just to log it. I would like it to be an experience. Don't get me wrong I will still cache these spots. Because you never know until you get there whether it was worth it. But I hate going to caches that were place just because someone wanted to place a cache. There is a lot of that going on out there right now. People are placing caches just to place them because they know people will go to them. I personally would like to see caches placed where there is something interesting or unique there or on some hiking trails or something interesting. Not someplace where you stop on the side of the road and walk in the woods 20 feet and place a cache. I hope I am getting my point accross.

dí76
07-20-2005, 03:30 PM
I agree, It should be an experiance. I would rather do one or two caches that were meaningful than seven or eight that were just there.

Cache'n Jacksons
07-20-2005, 04:45 PM
Hear, hear!!! :D

WhereRWe?
07-20-2005, 04:57 PM
I agree, It should be an experiance. I would rather do one or two caches that were meaningful than seven or eight that were just there.

Which would eliminate MOST micro caches. YES!!! :D

Mainiac1957
07-20-2005, 05:19 PM
Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel. :D

WhereRWe?
07-20-2005, 05:23 PM
Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel. :D

Sheesh! Don't get me started! LOL! :o

Team2hunt
07-20-2005, 06:37 PM
The Team, reads the logs to see if the cache is interesting or not. You can learn alot by reading them. Parking, time it really takes, and wether the rating is correct. We will write better logs if the cache is interesting or teaches us something. We try to pass along this info in our logs. :cool: :cool: We wll not do all the caches in close proximity, only the interesting ones. There was an article in Today's Cacher not long ago about the lackluster cache pages and it mentioned the logs too.

TwoMaineiacs
07-20-2005, 07:29 PM
Joe and I drove over to Tamworth NH today to show some old friends how we geocache and get them started. I could not agree more with the comments about "caches just placed to have a cache". No fingers pointed but we found six caches today, only two of which weren't just a cache hidden on a walking path in buggy woods. Our woman friend had never geocached but goes to covered bridges all over the country. She found the cache at GCM6FY, a beautiful old 1828 covered bridge. We enjoyed the history placques and looking at the remarkable wooden construction. I didn't know most covered bridges were built so well that if a flood took them downstream, they often stayed intact and could be dragged by oxen back up to their starting point!

Second interesting one was a virtual GC88A9, again an interesting place and good history. Our male friend had visited this as a four year old child and had always remembered his mom carrying his young brother up the stairway.

The other caches were just woods walks with coordinates that were either bouncing or quite far off. I kept telling our friends about Morse Mountain with that incredible view and "Strawberry" behind Harpswell Town Hall and seeing the osprey and osprey nest. Those are the types of caches that will keep us caching.

And no - we have not placed any and know it must be hard to do so. And yes, reading the comments help decide which ones to put the energy into. We are saving Rattlesnake Mountain for our 100th as others have done so and seem glad they did so. Or should we do Battleship up in Bangor? Up to 86 caches and wanting to put some memory into #100.

Anne

Mainiac1957
07-20-2005, 08:02 PM
Might I suggest a REAL challenge like Stacked on the Stillwater :p Isn't that right Brdad ;)

brdad
07-20-2005, 09:24 PM
Might I suggest a REAL challenge like Stacked on the Stillwater :p Isn't that right Brdad ;)

I think at this time a year Etna Bog would separate the real cachers from the 1/1 hunters. Though, I can imagine Stacked is a step up right now from when I found it, too.

dí76
07-20-2005, 10:12 PM
I not sure why anyone would put them selves through the torture of being in a bog this time of year. I think if reality tv wanted to impress us they would do 39 days in the Alton Bog in june/July, not a tropical island with rabbit food and berries, long beaches and great weather. :D

WhereRWe?
07-21-2005, 06:41 AM
On a recent trip we encountered a series of caches. Here is a sample description from the log: "This is the 2nd in a series of caches located at exits along the (xxx) highway between (xxxx) and (xxxx)."

And yes, the first cache in the series we found was a micro in a light pole at a fast food restaurant... LOL!

(Note: the cache owner hs placed 20 caches, yet found only 12. Is this indicative of anything? :rolleyes: )

Cache Maine
07-21-2005, 08:27 AM
I saw this listing for a cache down south and got quite a chuckle. I hope it never comes to this up here.

GCP5WC-Quickie for Quantity (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=10393662-7a7e-4619-ae45-d2ee7b15c157)

"this one has no purpose, no meaning, it's just a number."

:eek:

WhereRWe?
07-21-2005, 09:09 AM
I saw this listing for a cache down south and got quite a chuckle. I hope it never comes to this up here.

GCP5WC-Quickie for Quantity (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=10393662-7a7e-4619-ae45-d2ee7b15c157)

"this one has no purpose, no meaning, it's just a number."

:eek:

LOL! And I see that on July 16, "The Team" made 3 log entries.

I did a count and there are 62 caches within a 5 mile radius. No wonder some people get thousands of finds! LOL!

brdad
07-21-2005, 10:22 AM
I did a count and there are 62 caches within a 5 mile radius. No wonder some people get thousands of finds! LOL!

If you want a better test (but still not 100% fair) of finds Multipy the number of finds by the average difficulty of their finds and multiply that by the average terrrain of their finds. 99% of those people with 1000 finds, the multipliers would still leave them at or near 1000!

A cache like this would not be such a deal, might even be kind of cute - IF if was the only cache of it's sort in a 100 mile radius. But, you know that is not the case...

Sabby
07-21-2005, 12:27 PM
Take a look at Nashville TN, I did a search and there were over 200 caches within 6 miles of the center of the city. A high numbers NY cacher claims to have done 85 in one day. With that "it's all about the numbers". Some places in CA are like that too, and I'll bet there are similar numbers in lots of large cities.

Slate
07-21-2005, 12:51 PM
How about 242 finds in one day in Nashville? Check out the logs from 7/4/04.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?ul=carleenp

Haffy
07-21-2005, 02:33 PM
That record was broken by 2 Germans Huskie & GeoPirat, 263 finds in a 24 hour period. This article was in the first issue of Today's Cacher. This all took place in the Jacksonville Florida area.

WhereRWe?
07-21-2005, 02:46 PM
How about 242 finds in one day in Nashville? Check out the logs from 7/4/04.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?ul=carleenp

Well, I counted about 170 caches within a 5 mile radius. And please note: they did this in NASHVILLE!!! LOL!

But in any case, I really question whether or not they did this. Perhaps a "team" split up? Consider this: If they found a cache every 5 minutes, 242 caches would have taken them 20 hours NONSTOP. Pretty hard for me to accept...

Sheesh! In readying some of the logs, they refer to Nashville as "Cacheville". No wonder!

Double sheesh! I also note in the log for one cache they hit in this marathon that the spouse of the cache owner has logged the cache twice!

Makes me sick... :mad: :mad: :mad:

Mainiac1957
07-21-2005, 08:22 PM
As it says at the top of our Webpage.. "The way caching SHOULD be" :D (shameless self-promotion) :D

Sudonim
07-21-2005, 08:48 PM
If you want a better test (but still not 100% fair) of finds Multipy the number of finds by the average difficulty of their finds and multiply that by the average terrrain of their finds.

I have thought for a while now that this would be a better track of a cachers experience than just a 1 for 1 count. Hike 5 miles into the woods and up a 1500 foot climb for a cache counts the same as a rest stop lamp post? This would put a different perspective on the numbers too.

brdad
07-22-2005, 05:48 AM
I have thought for a while now that this would be a better track of a cachers experience than just a 1 for 1 count. Hike 5 miles into the woods and up a 1500 foot climb for a cache counts the same as a rest stop lamp post? This would put a different perspective on the numbers too.

The only reason it will never be 100% fair is that there are so many variables. Everyone approaches a given cache differently, many people have physical limitations that turn a 2 terrain into a 4 terrain for them (and I'm not going to venture into the mental limitations of some of us :D ), And caches are rated so differently in different areas. It seems if you step off the pavement in some areas it is instantly a 3 terrain, and to lose sight of a parking lot is a 4.5. And here I was questioning a 5 rating for Dave1976's "Gorge"ous cache!

Hiram357
09-26-2005, 05:07 PM
Depending on how close the caches are there are some that could be made into multi caches. For example I went to the 3 friends cache in Hallowell, found it, then went back to the Jeep to head off to the next one only to find out that I already walked past it because it was on the same trail! So it's really a use your best judgement kind of issue, if it would make a good multi, that person should contact the person that owns the other cache and make a team effort of taking care of them.

dí76
09-26-2005, 05:44 PM
Depending on how close the caches are there are some that could be made into multi caches. For example I went to the 3 friends cache in Hallowell, found it, then went back to the Jeep to head off to the next one only to find out that I already walked past it because it was on the same trail! So it's really a use your best judgement kind of issue, if it would make a good multi, that person should contact the person that owns the other cache and make a team effort of taking care of them.

Do you down load caches to your gps one at a time or in quaries. If you did them in quaries you would have seen it on your way buy (just an FYI) I know exactly what you are saying .

Yeehawma
09-26-2005, 07:34 PM
From my limited caching experience in Maine and my hours of research, it appears to me that you folks do it " the way Caching should be" Please do not become another Nashville or Lakeland FL. Quality definitely out rates quantity!

Smitty & Co.
09-26-2005, 07:40 PM
From my limited caching experience in Maine and my hours of research, it appears to me that you folks do it " the way Caching should be" Please do not become another Nashville or Lakeland FL. Quality definitely out rates quantity!
Makes it all worthwhile when I hear statements like this from our out of state geocaching friends......thx!!

Hiram357
09-26-2005, 08:51 PM
Do you down load caches to your gps one at a time or in quaries. If you did them in quaries you would have seen it on your way buy (just an FYI) I know exactly what you are saying .
Yeah, I did them one at a time, (like the month ago that i did that cache) but then I paid the $30 so now i can do the queries. And I aslo brought my laptop home from work so I can load all the coords into my mapping prog and have the computer plan the route for me! :cool:

firefighterjake
09-26-2005, 08:51 PM
Granted I'm still a newbie, but my personal feeling is that a cache should be placed for the location (i.e. scenic view or unique natural phenomenon, i.e. I've Found My Thrill cache, Barred Island . . . almost cache), historical aspect (i.e. Before Lizzie Borden cache, Boxboard Mill cache) or in a spot with special meaning (i.e. Out of the Ashes.)

Maybe my thinking is a bit off here, but I a) try to put some thought into my locations of my caches, b) I try to give some thought as to how I want to place the hide (i.e. any special camouflage), c) I try to make my signature items unique and personal so that folks will realize that I took some time and energy into creating them, d) the items that I place in my caches and trade are in good condition and do not look like I found them at an old dump site and e) I have made a personal resolve to try to set out a cache for every 25 found caches as one way of "giving" back to this activity. As I said, these are my own personal views and are not meant to be a sleight to anyone who does not share these beliefs.

Unlike some folks I am not adverse to micro caches as long as they're done for a real and meaningful purpose at a location where it is impossible or nearly impossible to have a traditional cache . . . and like most of you folks (although I've found it) . . . finding a 35 mm canister under a lamp post in a fast food restaurant parking lot or attached to a guard rail of a donut shop doesn't exactly give me the same thrill say as the scenery at Oak Point cache for example.) A good example is a cache at a memorial in Detroit . . . a quick and simple find. The cache could have done a virtual cache but instead chose a micro and I think it worked in this case as the area involved was in a small area. Again, only my personal feelings.

As for the numbers . . . I truly don't believe it's all about the numbers. I suppose some folks might get a certain thrill of being one of the top leaders in finding caches or being the FTF, but for the short time I've been caching it's been more about the thrill of finding the cache (not necessarily what's inside, but it is nice to find a good trade item once and awhile) and the thrill in discovering new locations.

Finally, getting back to the original question. I personally believe that if there is an area that is worth putting a cache (once again due to its unique location, historical aspect or personal reason) I would not be adverse to any limits . . . as long as folks don't place caches out there just for the sake of placing a cache and as long as caches aren't so close to each other that it gets to the point where you can simply go to a parking lot and check under each lamp post or scan the nearby guard rails or find a cache and be unsure as to whether the found cache was the one you were searching for or another located close by.

Yeehawma
09-26-2005, 09:06 PM
Ditto to firefighterjake
I couln't have said it better!

FFFarmer
09-26-2005, 09:23 PM
We have found that some of our most memorable cache trips have only produced 6 to 8 finds and have included some really neat places that made the trip worth while. It is about the numbers, but it is also about the adventure and spending time with someone that enjoys the same thing.